Signature · 39.6% low-access (87th pct)
Graham County, AZ
Graham County sits in the upper national band on low-access (39.6%, +17.5 pts vs U.S.), with SNAP/vehicle context from ACS 2024.
- 39.6%
- low-access pop.
- 2
- food-desert tracts
- 16.3%
- on SNAP
- 39K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Graham County, AZ
LA-ELEVATED · ABOVE-NATIONAL · LILA-POCKET · SNAP-HEAVY · VEH-OK · DENSITY-MIXED
- LA-ELEVATED 39.6% low-access
- ABOVE-NATIONAL +17.5 pts vs US
- LILA-POCKET 2 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-HEAVY 16.3% SNAP
- VEH-OK 5.0% no vehicle
- DENSITY-MIXED 22% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Santa Cruz County ( -3.3 pts)
Upper-band low-access
Graham County sits in the upper national band (39.6%, #410 of 3,079) with 2 LILA tracts.
- #410
- national by low-access %
- #7
- in AZ
- 5
- low-access tracts
- 6K
- food-desert residents
Upper-band counties often pair elevated low-access with clustered LILA tracts. Low access = >1 mile urban / >10 miles rural.
Signature read: 39.6% low-access (87th pct) (+17.5 pts vs U.S. low-access).
How Graham County compares nationally
Relative to the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA food-access data, Graham County's 39.6% low-access share is elevated, higher than 87% of them and ranked #415 most-affected nationwide.
Graham County's elevated USDA tier split
9 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 2 LILA.
By USDA urbanicity classification, Graham County has 4 urban and 5 rural census tracts. The 1-mile (urban) vs 10-mile (rural) distance threshold above applies per tract, so a county's access rate reflects this mix.
Graham County vs nearby high low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Arizona, not a full county-board reprint
- Apache
Apache 54.7%
54.7 % low-access
- Navajo
Navajo 44.5%
44.5 % low-access
- Cochise
Cochise 43.9%
43.9 % low-access
- Graham
Graham 39.6%
39.6 % low-access
- Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz 36.3%
36.3 % low-access
- Yavapai
Yavapai 35.8%
35.8 % low-access
- Maricopa 20.8
Maricopa 20.8%
20.8 % low-access
FARA 2019 · elevated low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 9 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 37,220 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 5 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 2 |
| Low-Access Population | 14,755 |
| Low-Access Share | 39.6%well above the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 5,860 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 39,232 |
| Median Household Income | $67,325 |
| Poverty Rate | 17.3%above the national average |
| SNAP Households | 2,073 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 16.3%above the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 5.0%below the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 7.2% |
Thick SNAP store book in Graham County
Graham County has 29 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 8 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 13 locations (45% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Convenience Store · 13
- circle k 2700419, safford
- circle k 2701577, safford
- circle k 2703495, safford
- daily stop, thatcher
- mt graham market, safford
- speedway 2949, thatcher
- speedway 2961, safford
- speedway 2971, thatcher
- speedway 2981, pima
- speedway 2982, safford
- speedway 2984, safford
- speedway 2990, safford
- thatcher chevron, thatcher
Combination Grocery/Other · 8
- dollar general 14345, safford
- dollar general 6614, safford
- dollar general 13351, stafford
- dollar general 23586, safford
- dollar general 30083, safford
- dollar tree 2892, thatcher
- family dollar store 10218, ft. thomas
- walgreens 02429, safford
Super Store · 3
- food city 40, thatcher
- thriftee food and drug, safford
- walmart 1149, safford
Bakery Specialty · 1
- mi casa tortilla, safford
Meat/Poultry Specialty · 1
- carter's custom cuts, thatcher
Medium Grocery Store · 1
- murrieta meat market, safford
Small Grocery Store · 1
- mt. turnbull apache market, bylas
Supermarket · 1
- safeway 2648, thatcher
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Arizona
One of 14 counties in Arizona, 6 are shown here.
Compare Graham County vs Apache County → · All Arizona counties →
Counties near Graham County's elevated low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Graham County, both outside Arizona so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside AZ (39.6% here).
- Bleckley County, GA · 39.6% low-access
- Bleckley County, GA · 39.6% low-access
- Rockdale County, GA · 39.6% low-access
- Rockdale County, GA · 39.6% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside AZ (16.3% here).
- Chambers County, AL · 16.3% SNAP
- Chambers County, AL · 16.3% SNAP
- Glades County, FL · 16.3% SNAP
- Glades County, FL · 16.3% SNAP
Source: USDA Food Access Research Atlas (2019) + Census ACS 2024 SNAP. Peers floor at 10,000 residents so stub counties cannot own the match.
Graham County inside a higher low-access state context
Graham County sits inside Arizona (ringed). Each state is colored by population-weighted low-access; click any state to compare.
USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas (2019), population-weighted · Census ACS 2024 context
Read with this county
Sources: USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas (2019) · U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2024 5-Year Estimates · methodology · compiled .
PlainFoodAccess renders this county profile directly from the USDA Food Access Research Atlas (2019) and U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (2024 5-year estimates), no number is typed in by an editor. Figures for Graham County, AZ are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 04009. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of 2026-06-23. Primary sources: USDA Food Access Research Atlas and Census ACS 5-year estimates.
Note: This page presents public USDA and Census data for informational purposes and is not professional advice. Figures reflect the cited dataset vintages and may differ from the most recent local conditions. How this data is sourced & verified.